1. On
July 22, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter the "Inter-American Commission," the "Commission" or the "IACHR")
received a petition from Nasry Javier Ictech Guifarro (hereinafter "the
petitioner" or "the alleged victim") alleging the responsibility of the
Republic of Honduras (hereinafter "Honduras" or the "State") for
violation, to his detriment, of Articles 23, 24 and 25 of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the "American Convention" or the
"Convention") in relation to Article 1.1 thereof.

2. The
petitioner alleges that the State refused to register his independent
candidacy, thereby preventing him from running for Municipal Mayor of
the Central District of the Department of Francisco Morazán and being
elected in the 2001 election for the period 2002-2006. The State
asserts that when the petitioner submitted his candidacy to the National
Elections Tribunal, he did not file all documents required by the
Electoral and Political Organizations Law. In addition, the State
points out, independent candidates for mayor are not allowed under
domestic law.

3.
Following a thorough review of the positions of the petitioner and the
State, the Commission decides to rule this petition admissible under
Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, as it meets all
requirements for admission in that it alleges violation of human rights
protected by the Convention. Lastly, the Commission decides to publish
this report in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly and to
notify both parties.

II. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE IACHR

4. The
Commission received the petition on July 22, 2002 and assigned it the
number 2570-02. On August 12, 2002, the IACHR acknowledged receipt of
the petition. On April 4, 2003, after a preliminary review, it conveyed
the petition to the State, giving it two months to reply. On June 10,
2003, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the State's reply, which it
conveyed to the petitioner on the same date. On September 12, 2003, the
Commission acknowledged receipt of the petitioner's comments on the
State's reply and conveyed those comments to the latter. On December
12, 2003, the Commission sent to the petitioner the comments from the
State. On January 21, 2004, the petitioner filed comments that were
relayed to the State on January 23, 2004, giving it one month to reply.
On February 27, 2004, the State submitted additional information, which
was conveyed to the petitioner that same day. On March 8, 2004,
additional information was received from the petitioner and sent to the
State on March 31, 2004. The petitioner filed comments on the State's
report on April 12, 2004. These were relayed to the State on April 29,
2004. On May 25, 2004, the State asked for a 30-day extension to file
its comments, which were received on July 6, 2004, and conveyed to the
petitioner on August 18, 2004. On August 25, 2004, the IACHR received
additional information from the petitioner. On October 15, 2004, it
received comments from the State, which were relayed to the petitioner
on November 23, 2004. Subsequently, both the petitioner and the State
continued to present information, which was conveyed by the IACHR to the
other party.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The petitioner

5. The
petitioner contends that on August 29, 2001, the National Elections
Tribunal decided to reject his candidacy for the office of Mayor of the
Central District in the elections of November 25, 2001, for the period
2002-2006, on the basis that it was an independent candidacy and
consequently not provided for in the Electoral and Political
Organizations Law or in any other national regulations.

6.
That decision denied his political right to run for office in democratic
elections and to be elected, as guaranteed by the Political
Constitution, the Electoral and Political Organizations Law and the
American Convention.

7. He
indicates that he met all legal requirements, as shown by the legal
opinion issued on June 6, 2001, by the Office of the General Adviser to
the National Elections Tribunal, which concluded that the documents
filed "meet the requirements of the law." That opinion was confirmed by
opinion OM-TNE-2001 of August 21, 2001, which states that he met all
requirements "established in paragraphs a), b) and c) of Article 49 of
the Electoral Law,[1]
inasmuch as registration of independent candidates to the office of
Mayor does not require presentation of lists of electors referred to in
paragraph ch) of that article." The same opinion indicates that his
candidacy met the requirements of Article 59 of the Electoral Law, which
establishes "formal requirements for applying for registration, which
have been satisfied by the applicant."

8.
That same advisory office, the petitioner argues, acknowledged in the
end that his application met all requirements and conditions prescribed
by law in order to be "registered as an independent candidate for the
office of Municipal Mayor of the Central District and thus be able to
take part in the general elections to elect supreme and municipal
authorities on Sunday, November 25," 2001. Consequently, the petitioner
asserts, the National Elections Tribunal ignored the advisory office
without any legal justification.

9. The
Supreme Court of Justice rejected his application for constitutional
protection not because it was inadmissible but for strictly political
reasons that had no legal basis. He filed an application for review the
same day he was notified that his constitutional protection action had
been rejected, that is to say, on November 14, 2001. This last legal
action was ruled inadmissible by the Constitutional Chamber of the
Supreme Court of Justice on February 11, 2002, of which he was notified
on May 8, 2002.

10. In
addition, the petitioner says, Article 37 of the Political Constitution[2]
establishes the right of citizens to be elected; Article 45 bars any
action limiting that right, and Article 4 of the Electoral Law
prescribes that "political parties and independent candidacies are the
political forms of organization and means of participation of citizens."[3]
Chapter VI of the law mentions independent candidacies and there is no
legal provision restricting the right to participate in the country's
political life.

11. It
is not true, consequently, that political parties are the only way to
participate in the country's political life, inasmuch as independent
candidacies are included in the current Electoral Law. Article 4 of
that law, furthermore, does not limit independent candidacies to the
offices of President of the Republic and Representatives in the National
Congress.

12.
Moreover, he argues, the requirements in Article 49 (ch)[4]
of the Electoral Law need to be met only by those running for the office
of Representative, President of the Republic and Vice Presidents [Designados
a la Presidencia], who must file lists of 2% of the voters
registered in the department. He argues as well that his candidacy met
all requirements in Article 56 of the Electoral Law[5]
for election to membership in a Municipal Corporation. These arguments,
he believes, were never discussed by the National Elections Tribunal
when it took its decision.

13. The
petitioner also states that he has exhausted the internal remedies,
having filed an application for constitutional protection against the
decision of the National Elections Tribunal that rejected his candidacy.
That is the only legal action available under domestic Law to challenge
such a decision. In addition, he applied for review but was also turned
down.

B. The State

14. The
State contends that the alleged victim asked the National Elections
Tribunal for information on the requirements and procedures for
registering his independent candidacy to Mayor of the Central District
of the Department of Francisco Morazán in the November 2001 elections.

15. The
alleged victim received all necessary information in Note No.
151-0811-99 TNE, which also advised him that he had to abide by the
Electoral and Political Organizations Law.

16.
Honduras points out that on November 9, 2000, the petitioner formally
applied to the National Elections Tribunal, the body responsible for
registering independent candidacies, as an independent candidate in that
election. He submitted only the following: a certificate of local
residence; a political platform; the symbol of his candidacy and a
declaration that he would abide by the obligations imposed on political
parties by articles 12, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 21 of the Electoral and
Political Organizations Law.[6]

17. On
August 29, 2001, the National Elections Tribunal decided, by majority
vote, to deny registration of the petitioner's independent candidacy, a
decision for which there were legal grounds. The decision taken in the
review requested by the petitioner was likewise founded on legal
reasons.

18. On
September 13, 2001, the alleged victim filed a constitutional protection
action with the Supreme Court of Justice. The application was ruled
receivable and the refusal to register his candidacy was suspended, but
in its final decision the Court found the application inadmissible.

19. The
State asserts that it is not clear what "legal tenets" of the American
Convention are supposed to have been violated to the detriment of the
alleged victim.

20.
Honduras maintains, in addition, that its Political Constitution and
applicable laws recognize political parties but do not specifically
provide for independent candidacies for municipal mayoralties, so that
the National Elections Tribunal had no choice but to rule against the
petitioner's candidacy.

21.
According to the State, Article 49 of the Electoral Law allows an
independent candidacy for "President of the Republic, Vice Presidents [Designados
de la Presidencia] and Representatives to the National Congress."
The National Elections Tribunal could have interpreted that provision
broadly to include independent candidacies for mayor, but in that case
it would have had to require the same formalities prescribed for
candidates for President, Representatives and Vice Presidents,
especially the filing of a list of citizens representing at least 2% of
the registered national or departmental voters, as appropriate, which is
what that article prescribes.

22.
Consequently, the State asserts that the petitioner's rights were not
infringed, that all appeals were properly decided according to law, and
that the National Elections Tribunal interpreted the law according to
legal interpretation standards, bearing in mind that it would be
inconsistent with the spirit of the Electoral and Political
Organizations Law to have a candidate in municipal elections registered
as such with the backing of no more than one or two citizens, as this
would create chaos and electoral anarchy in the country.

23.
Lastly, the State contends that the petitioner did not exhaust the
internal remedies before bringing the matter to the Commission.

24. The
petitioner is empowered under Article 44 of the American Convention to
file petitions with the IACHR. The petition names as the alleged victim
an individual whose rights under the American Convention the Republic of
Honduras has undertaken to respect and guarantee. As for the State, the
Commission points out that Honduras is a party to the American
Convention since September 8, 1977, when it deposited its instrument of
ratification. Consequently, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione
personae to hear the petition.

25. The
Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci because the alleged
violations took place within the territory of a State party to the
Convention--Honduras in this case. The Commission has jurisdiction
ratione temporis because the alleged events occurred when the
obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in the
Convention was already in force for the State. Lastly, the Commission
has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition complains
of violations of human rights protected by the Convention.

B. Other admissibility requirements

1. Exhaustion of internal remedies

26.
Under Article 46.1.a of the Convention, the admissibility of a petition
filed with the Commission requires "that the remedies under domestic law
have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized
principles of international law."

27. It
needs to be noted that the State mentioned the failure to exhaust
internal remedies but did not indicate the legal actions that are
pending.

28.
Under Article 29 of the Electoral Law, the constitutional protection
application filed by the petitioner with the Supreme Court of Justice of
Honduras was the last legal action available to challenge the decision
of August 29, 2001, by the National Elections Tribunal. The petitioner,
in addition, decided to file an application for review as a last attempt
to register his candidacy. That application was ruled inadmissible by
the Supreme Court on November 14, 2001. Consequently, internal remedies
were exhausted with this final ruling, as prescribed in Article 46.1.b
of the Convention.

29. For
the above reasons the Commission decides that the required exhaustion of
internal remedies has taken place in this case.

2. Filing deadline

30.
Article 46.1.b of the Convention provides that, for a petition to be
ruled admissible, it must be "lodged within a period of six months from
the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was
notified of the final judgment."

31. In
this case the petition was lodged on July 22, 2002, that is to say, more
than two months after the petitioner was notified of the inadmissibility
of the last legal action he filed namely, the application for review,
which notification took place on May 8, 2002. The Commission
accordingly decides that the petition was lodged in a timely fashion
consistent with the provisions of the Convention and the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission, which is to say within the prescribed six
months.

32. The
Commission believes that there is no reason in this case to depart from
the clear text of the American Convention as regards the filing
deadline.

3. Duplication of procedures and international
res iudicata

33.
There is no indication in the record that the case is pending in another
international procedure or duplicates a petition previously examined by
this or another international body. Accordingly, the requirements of
Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met.

4. Characterization of the events alleged

34. The
petitioner contends that the State violated his rights under Articles 23
and 25 of the Convention in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. The State
argues that violations of the Convention have not been specified and
that its government bodies acted according to law.

35. The
Commission finds that, in the decisions taken in this case, the
Electoral Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Justice interpreted the
Electoral Law to mean that it does not allow independent candidacies for
the office of mayor. It finds as well that although the Electoral Law
does recognize the existence of independent candidacies generically, it
neither deals specifically with independent candidacies for mayor nor
regulates their requirements; it simply provides for and regulates
(Article 49(ch)) independent candidacies for President of the Republic,
Representative and Vice President [Designado Presidencial].
Consequently, in light of the recent case law of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights,[7]
the Commission finds sufficient evidence to believe that the events
alleged in this petition may qualify as a violation of Articles 23 and
24 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1.1 thereof, something that
will need to be established when the substance of the matter is
examined. In application of the principle iura curia novit, the
Commission also rules finds petition admissible in relation to Article 2
of the Convention.

36. As
regards Article 25, the right to judicial protection, the Commission
believes that the petitioner made use, under the Electoral Law, of the
possibility of challenging the decision by the Electoral Tribunal
through a constitutional protection action. Consequently, the events
complained of do not qualify as a violation of Article 25 of the
Convention.[8]

V. CONCLUSION

37. The
Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that the Commission
has jurisdiction to hear the petitioner's claim concerning alleged
violations of Articles 23 and 24 in conjunction with Article 1.1 and 2
of the American Convention, as prescribed in Articles 46.1.c and d,
46.2.c and 47.b thereof and Articles 28 to 37 and 39 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission.

38.
Based on the above facts and law and without prejudging the merits of
the matter,

THE INTER-AMERICAN
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

DECIDES:

1. To
find this petition admissible in relation to Articles 1.1, 2, and 23 of
the American Convention.

2. To
convey this report to the petitioners and the State.

3. To
begin examining the merits of the case.

4. To
publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the General
Assembly of the OAS.

Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the
14th day of the month of March, 2006. (Signed): Evelio
Fernández Arévalos,
President; Paulo SérgioPinheiro,
First Vice-President; Florentín Meléndez, Second Vice-President; Clare
K. Roberts, Freddy Gutiérrez Trejo, Paolo Carozza and Víctor E.
Abramovich,
Commissioners.

[1]
Electoral and Political Organizations Law, published in La Gaceta
No. 23-407, May 19, 1981.

[2]
Political Constitution of Honduras, Decree Number 131, January 11,
1982.

[3]
Electoral and Political Organizations Law, published in La Gaceta
No. 23-407, May 19, 1981.

[8]
In the Case of Yatama the Court found a violation of Article
25 based on the inexistence of a procedure to appeal the decision by
the Electoral Tribunal. I/A Court H.
R., Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No.
127, paragraph 175.